Matthew. If people don't reveal their own proper names on this forum, do you really expect them to name their source (probably close friends with genuine concerns about what's happening at Wycliffe)? And can't you imagine all sorts of reasons why Clare MacInnes's letter might have been circulated, with her blessing, around those involved at the highest level with theological training in the Church of England? Bp James Jones and the Council are perfectly at liberty to issue a public statement to the effect that she has misrepresented them, but so far they have refused to do so.

I can see why you're anxious about more information finding its way into the open, but colluding in the culture of suppression and secrecy which Turnbull has been so careful to create at Wycliffe is only making the whole business look even more shady.

Turnbull's response to Clare MacInnes shows no sign of repentance, regret or circumspection over the behaviour which drove his best academic staff members away from the college. He is obfuscating in just the way David Wenham et al described: failing to respond in any satisfactory way to the serious charges brought against him; and instead turning the whole thing around so it makes his critics look like the ones who have acted 'inappropriately' and 'godlessly'.

Mrs MacInnes was very clear about the reasons why she brought her concerns out into the open. She considered it 'her responsibility' to the college, and she presumably also intended to clear up some of those 'godless' rumours which Turnbull and his colleagues have greeted with stony silence! Unfortunately for him, her version of events has confirmed those rumours rather than refuted them. She had also run out of options and had arrived at a position of 'no confidence in the Chair, the Principal, or the Council as a whole to address these serious matters of governance, employment practice, and simple human relationships'. Dr T's failure, again, to answer her concerns but his eagerness instead to bury them along with the appeals of other resigned staff members shows that she was right to lose confidence.

What Turnbull has condemned as gossip is looking increasingly like truth which he is desperate to conceal. The repeated calls for silence on this forum are confirmation of that. Let us remember that the only rumour/piece of gossip that has been released into the public domain and proven to be false is the accusation brought against Elaine Storkey by Jonathan Aitken.

Would anyone at Wycliffe care to confirm or deny the rumour that a letter has been circulating among students, by Richard Turnbull, relating to the resignation of Clare MacInnes? I didn't hear this directly from Wycliffe, so don't go asking me to 'name my source' because I don't know who the source is.

It would be very interesting to know what the content of this circular is, and whether or not Clare MacInnes's letter has also been made available in full.

This is odd - but then again I would have thought that what's needed here isn't an inspection of the college as it is now but an independent investigation into what has happened over the past 2-3 years. I suppose holding the inspection in October 08 will allow time for the consequences of the departures to make themselves felt, and will give a much clearer picture of the direction the college is being taken in. For example, the composition of the student body will no doubt be different with a new post-scandal generation, and the impact of the resignations on academic standards will be easier to assess.

I still think this will be too little too late. I hope that the College Visitor, despite his other preoccupations, will make the time to listen to and act on behalf of the staff in exile - since the Hall Council and Principal have so comprehensively failed to do so.

I thought it might be timely to remind ourselves of an old story from November last year:

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=28820

(see also http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20061110butler.cfm?doc=165)

It involves one of the members of the Hall Council at the heart of the Wycliffe controversy. What struck me was the following comment by a church member: "The thing that alarmed me was that Paul said he didn't want to go into much detail, but wanted us to trust him on this." Ring any bells?!

"It is likely that some parts of the letters give an impression of some of the tensions within Wycliffe, as well as giving an impression of some of the mistakes that may have been made."

You seem to be saying here that the other parts of the letters were false or misleading, and that 'some' but not 'all' of the mistakes and tensions have come to light. I'm sure you're right, but not in the way that you think. The only accusation that has been brought against the departed staff members is their resistance to change; this is hardly a sacking matter, and if there are mistakes on both sides then the mistakes look a great deal weightier on the one side than on the other.

"People have based their assessment on zero information."

This is simply not true: we have the facts of the resignations themselves, the testimony of the three staff who resigned (which you dismiss as having been conceived in anger), the comments of three former Principals, the testimony of a member of the Hall Council, the words spoken by Richard Turnbull himself at the Reform Conference, the letter of resignation from Philip Johnston, Jonathan Aitken's article and its subsequent retraction, the PPH review, and the limited responses from Bishop James Jones and Dr Turnbull. This is far from zero.

The discussion will go on because many of us are furious at the treatment of godly, beloved teachers and demand an explanation; because we are deeply concerned about what one poster on TA has aptly described as the 'intimidation, bullying, obfuscation, stonewalling and suppression of dissent' going on in certain conservative evangelical circles; because we want to hold Wycliffe accountable to its various wider communities in the University and the Church; because we want the truth brought to light. I don't have a problem with any of those reasons for continuing to discuss this matter, and I'd rather you didn't automatically impute dishonourable motives to us without knowing our hearts and minds.

Matthew, there are some very good reasons indeed why posts on this forum have questioned the lawfulness of the behaviour of Principal and Council. What we know now, which we didn't know before Clare MacInnes's resignation, is the following:

- that dissent in meetings of the Hall Council was not minuted, and discussion about the real concern of staff and certain Council members was suppressed;

- that those who did dissent were subject to intimidation;

- that Dr Turnbull's appointment (including the award of a higher-than-average salary) was made without a formal appraisal.

What we know now that we didn't before the letter from Geoff Maughan, Eeva John and David Wenham is the following:

-  that "strategic decisions, policies, and appointments were made without due regard for the views of colleagues";

- that disciplinary proceedings against Elaine Storkey were taken in response to her forthright support of staff and students, whose questions about the appointment of VP were answered unsatisfactorily;

- that repeated calls for face-to-face discussion and external mediation were refused by the Council;

- that these respected staff members, at least, believed that severing the contracts of Elaine Storkey and the Goddards was deeply 'unjust'.

Unless you hold the testimonies of Mrs MacInnes, Revd Maughan, Revd Dr Wenham and Dr John in utter contempt, you have to allow that they leave wide open serious concerns about what has gone on at Wycliffe which need to be urgently addressed. Against their word all we have are the repeated assurances from two men that Wycliffe as a community is thriving, that there is a broad theological range represented among the staff, that there are great throngs of women ordinands - none of which is relevant if the above is true. While the questions remain unanswered there will be endless discussion and speculation.  

As everyone keeps trying to remind you, you cannot close the door now that the horse has bolted. If you're afraid that posts on Fulcrum will unfavourably influence any independent investigation into the Principal's conduct, don't be: he has done quite enough to ensure that our petty contributions won't be necessary.

Perhaps I'm being simple-minded, Simon, but can I get something straight: the Bishop of Jerusalem is upset because US House of Bishops didn't revoke the principle as well as the practice, and regards this as a kind of hypocrisy.

I see a parallel of sorts with the pastoral and political 'restraint' exercised by the Church of England for twenty years after it had agreed that there were no significant theological arguments against the admission of women to the priesthood. I don't think this position of self-denial is inconsistent, but it is deeply painful. The TEC is making a grave sacrifice by reining back the imperatives of conscience, and it is utterly churlish of its critics to insist upon that outward sacrifice and then - when they have some of their own way - demand that intellects and consciences and hearts and principles should also be offered up on the pire.

The full revocation that is called for would truly be the most abominable hypocrisy.

Valid criticisms, Jonathan? Let's see.

- 'He repeats the allegations of misogyny and homophobia'. Actually, what he reports is that 'complaints of homophobia and misogyny have been levelled at the Wycliffe leadership'; which is perfectly true, even if those complaints themselves were falsely-based. Also, he is quick to point out that Dr Turnbull rejected these allegations.

- Custard also claims that Stephen Bates presented the PPH report as if it were all about Wycliffe. Paragraph 3 shows that this is clearly not the case, and that Bates was merely pointing out that 'there are particular concerns about Wycliffe'; again, this is hardly a controversial point.

- 'It suggests that the report was a response to the issues at Wycliffe.' Where does it do this, Custard?

- Custard's final point is the most disingenuous. Certainly there are doubts about the academic standard of and admission procedures for the non-University degrees, but the Review also clearly raises questions about Wycliffe's ability to provide a hospitable environment for free critical enquiry and debate and points out that it produces ordinands of a marked theological character.

David H: I had overlooked the astonishing remarks of the Church Society, thanks for drawing our attention to those. They clearly see Fulcrum as the source of all the sordid leaks and Wycliffe gossip. Referring to Dr Turnbull's 95% comment that 'there is a work of evangelism to be done because 95% of the population are going to hell' as 'an unpleasant fact' is interesting; presumably they trust his calculations as a chartered accountant? Also, who were the 'many' who thought Wycliffe had drifted from its evangelical basis under Alister McGrath? Presumably, erm, Reform and the Church Society. And Dr T, of course.

Thank you, Custard, for pointing me to Richard's remarks from May of this year. The full context of the quote is this:

'Theological colleges are conservative places; the student body changes every year, comfort is sometimes sought in nothing else changing. In some respects these changes have been radical and that has been hard for some. I have had to learn a great deal, made mistakes and have sometimes felt that I needed, but lacked, the wisdom of Solomon. Yet radical change is needed if we are effectively to empower the church and its future leadership, and more importantly to win the nation for Jesus.'

Which makes those who have resigned not only appear resistant to the 'radical change' needed to 'empower the church and ... win the nation for Jesus', but also look like insecure and feeble old fossils clinging to the comfort of institutional continuity. The burden of responsibility for the conflict rests squarely on their shoulders, from this perspective. 

Well, now we know a bit more about just what that radical change meant for these women and men: a lack of respect for due process; the Council's indifference to desperate attempts at reconciliation; an absence of proper disciplinary and grievance procedures, and professional discourtesy of the worst kind. If these are the mistakes Dr T is referring to, how does he plan to atone for them?

Since we seem to be in the business of congratulating one another for mature and sensible contributions, thanks Fern for your thoughtful post (about time a woman was affirmed here for her equally measured and intelligent comments); and thanks too User 1437 for making the fundamental but neglected point that 'moving on' doesn't mean shrugging off. It is good to see that, at last, Wycliffe ordinands (and Turnbull himself by the sound of it) are admitting that mistakes have been made, that there have been serious problems with the college's leadership and personnel management. I'm becoming increasingly baffled, though, by attempts to mitigate the impact of the CT/CEN letter by deflecting attention from its content to a debate about statistics. Numbers are certainly important in this situation but, as we have sees, they can be interpreted very differently (I wonder, for example, whether the Senior Tutor's imminent retirement might have prevented one further resignation). What's more important is what really lies behind the departures that we have seen, and the kind of response that is required to prevent any such distress or division in future. Despite the new concessions of guilt, there is clearly still a reluctance among certain Wycliffe representatives to accept that anyone - least of all Turnbull - should take responsibility for these grave errors of judgment or suffer any consequences for them.